Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Experimental study on shear behaviour of precast shear wall–slab dowel connection

  • 3 Accesses

Abstract

The primary challenge in any precast structure is its connection between the various elements, mainly the shear wall–slab joint during earthquake. The objective of this study is to predict the shear capacity of the dowel connection under reverse cyclic loading by experimental testing. The study also aims to develop the 3D numerical model for dowel connection between precast shear wall–slab using the finite-element analysis. The performance of the precast dowel connection was measured concerning the failure mode, hysteresis behaviour, ultimate strength, moment carrying capacity, and the ductility factor. The ultimate strength of this dowel connection was 11.17 kN and 11.03 kN in the push and pull direction of loading, respectively. The experimental study was validated with the numerical results and the difference in outcome was found to be only 5%. The model developed was used for the estimation of shear capacity of the connection region. The shear stress developed in the joint region was also found to be within the limit prescribed by various codes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

References

  1. ABAQUS. (2012). Analysis User’s Manual. Version 6.12, Dassault Systemes Simulia, Inc.

  2. ACI Committee 318. (2002). Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-02) and commentary (ACI 318R-02) (p. 439). Michigan: American Concrete Institute.

  3. Alfarah, B., Lopez-Almansa, F., & Oller, S. (2017). New methodology for calculating damage variables evolution in plastic damage model for RC structures. Engineering Structures,132, 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.11.022.

  4. Beilic, D., Casotto, C., Nascimbene, R., Cicola, D., & Rodrigues, D. (2017). Seismic fragility curves of single storey RC precast structures by comparing different Italian codes. Earthquake and Structures,12(3), 359–374.

  5. Belleri, A., Brunesi, E., Nascimbene, R., Pagani, M., & Riva, P. (2015a). Seismic performance of precast industrial facilities following major earthquakes in the Italian territory. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities,29(5), 04014135.

  6. Belleri, A., Torquati, M., Riva, P., & Nascimbene, R. (2015b). Vulnerability assessment and retrofit solutions of precast industrial structures. Earthquake and Structures,8(3), 801–820.

  7. Belleri, A., Marini, A., Riva, P., & Nascimbene, R. (2017). Dissipating and re-centring devices for portal-frame precast structures. Engineering Structures,150, 736–745.

  8. Brunesi, E., Nascimbene, R., Bolognini, D., & Bellotti, D. (2015). Experimental investigation of the cyclic response of reinforced precast concrete framed structures. PCI Journal,60(2), 57–79.

  9. Brunesi, E., & Nascimbene, R. (2017). Experimental and numerical investigation of the seismic response of precast wall connections. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,15(12), 5511–5550.

  10. Brunesi, E., Peloso, S., Pinho, R., & Nascimbene, R. (2018). Cyclic testing of a full-scale two-storey reinforced precast concrete wall–slab–wall structure. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering,16(11), 5309–5339.

  11. Casotto, C., Silva, V., Crowley, H., Nascimbene, R., & Pinho, R. (2015). Seismic fragility of Italian RC precast industrial structures. Engineering Structures,94, 122–136.

  12. Dere, Y., & Koroglu, M. A. (2017). Nonlinear FE modeling of reinforced concrete. International Journal of Structural and Civil Engineering Research, 6(1), 71–74. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijscer.6.1.71-74.

  13. EPPO [Earthquake Planning and Protection Organization], Greek Code for Interventions (KANEPE), Athens, 2013.

  14. Elliot, K.S. (2017) Precast concrete structure, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, New York.

  15. Ercolino, M., Bellotti, D., Magliulo, G., & Nascimbene, R. (2018). Vulnerability analysis of industrial RC precast buildings designed according to modern seismic codes. Engineering Structures,158, 67–78.

  16. FIB [[International Federation for Structural Concrete], Model Code 2010 Vol.  2, Bulletin No. 66, 2012.

  17. IS 456:2000, Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of practice. Bureau of Indian Standards. New Delhi, India 2000.

  18. IS 13920: Indian Standard Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic forces. Bureau of Indian Standards. New Delhi, India, 1993.

  19. Kremmyda, G.D., Fahjan, Y.M., Psycharis, I.N. (2013). Analytical prediction of the shear resistance of precast RC pinned beam-to-column connections. In 4th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, Kos Island, Greece. https://doi.org/10.7712/120113.4611.C1443.

  20. Magliulo, G., Ercolino, M., Cimmino, M., Capozzi, V., Manfredi, G. (2014). Seismic behavior of beam-to-column dowel connections: numerical analysis vs experimental test. In Second European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Istanbul

  21. Mohammad, M.E., Ibrahim, I.S. (2015). Interface shear strength of concrete-to-concrete bond with and without projecting steel reinforcement. Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering), 75(1), 169–172. https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v75.3707

  22. Mohammad, M.E., Ibrahim, I.S., Abdullah, R. (2015). Finite element modelling of interface shear strength at concrete-to-concrete bond. In Proceedings of the APSEC & ACEC

  23. Mousavi, S. A., Zahrai, S. M., & Bahrami-Rad, A. (2014). A Quasi-static cyclic tests on super-lightweight EPS concrete shear walls. Engineering Structures,64, 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.02.003.

  24. Nascimbene, R. (2014). Towards non-standard numerical modeling of thin-shell structures: geometrically linear formulation. International Journal of Computational Methods in Engineering Science and Mechanics,15(2), 126–141.

  25. Obaidat, Y. T., Heyden, S., & Dahlblom, O. (2010). The effect of CFRP and CFRP/concrete interface models when modelling retrofitted RC beams with FEM. Composite Structures,92, 1391–1398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.11.008.

  26. Papanikolaou, V.K., Thermou, G.E. (2015). Concrete-to-concrete interfaces under cyclic loading—Finite element analysis towards experimental verification. In 5th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering (pp. 666–679). Crete Island, Greece. https://doi.org/10.7712/120115.3421.1399.

  27. Rahman, A.B., Leong, D.C.P., Saim, A.A., Osman, M.H. (2006). Hybrid beam-to-column connections for precast concrete frames. In Proceedings of the 6th Asia-Pacific Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

  28. Soudki, K. A., West, J. S., Rizkalla, S. H., & Blackett, B. (1996). Horizontal connections for precast concrete shear wall panels under cyclic shear loading. PCI Journal,41, 64–80.

  29. Surumi, R. S., Jaya, K. P., & Greeshma, S. (2015). Modelling and assessment of shear wall–flat slab joint region in tall structures. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering,40, 2201–2217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-015-1720-z.

  30. Taheri, H., Hejazi, F., Vaghei, R., Jaafar, M. S., & Aabang Ali, A. A. (2016). New precast wall connection subjected to rotational loading. Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering,60(4), 547–560. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.8545.

  31. Tawfik, A. S., Badr, M. R., & Eizanaty, A. (2014). Behavior and ductility of high strength reinforced concrete frames. Housing and Building National Research Center, HBRC Journal,10(2), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2013.11.005.

  32. Wan, S., Loh, C. H., & Peng, S. Y. (2001). Experimental and theoretical study on softening and pinching effects of bridge column. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,21, 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(00)00073-7.

  33. Yuksel, E., Karadogan, H. F., Bal, I. E., Ilki, A., Bal, A., & Inci, P. (2015). Seismic behavior of two exterior beam–column connections made of normal-strength concrete developed for precast construction. Engineering Structures,99, 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.04.044.

  34. Zoubek, B., Fischinger, M., Isakovic, T. (2016). Seismic response of dowel connections in RC structures. In NZSEE Conference. Christchurch, New Zealand.

  35. Zoubek, B., Fahjan, Y., Fischinger, M., Isaković, T. (2014). Nonlinear finite element modelling of centric dowel connections in precast buildings. Computers and Concrete, 14, 463–447. 10.12989/cac.2014.14.4.463.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research work was supported by the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi, India. The authors are thankful to the funding agency for their support.

Funding

The financial assistance was provided by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)-SRF to the author Ms. S. Arthi. CSIR Award Letter Number: 09/468/0494/2016 EMR-I dated 30/3/17.

Author information

Correspondence to S. Arthi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arthi, S., Jaya, K.P. Experimental study on shear behaviour of precast shear wall–slab dowel connection. Asian J Civ Eng (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-020-00229-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Precast dowel connection
  • Reverse cyclic loading
  • CDP
  • Cohesive
  • Load–displacement curve